{"title":"Cardiac scoring systems, coronary artery disease and major adverse cardiovascular events: A scoping review.","authors":"Preesha Premsagar, Colleen Aldous, Tonya Esterhuizen","doi":"10.4102/safp.v65i1.5683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronary artery disease (CAD) as the leading cause of death globally for the last 20 years. Early screening and detection (primary prevention) and intervention (secondary prevention) are necessary to curb CAD and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) prevalence. A scoping review to assess the current literature on using cardiac scoring systems to predict CAD and MACE was performed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research question 'What is the literature on using cardiac scoring systems to predict CAD and MACE?' was addressed. The updated Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews methodologies were used. The search terms 'coronary artery disease' and 'cardiac scoring systems' and 'major adverse cardiovascular events' were used in the Boolean search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, MedLine and Cochrane Library.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final list consisted of 19 published English results after the year 2000. There were six results without participants (four clinical guidelines, one review article and one ongoing clinical trial). Scoring systems were cardiovascular risk estimation systems focusing on the primary prevention of CAD; MACE was discussed but not scored. There were 13 robust results published from completed multinational clinical trials with participants. These results focused on a scoring system for the secondary prevention of CAD and MACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Scoring systems remain an objective method for primary and secondary prevention of CAD and MACE.Contribution: Scoring systems may be helpful with clinical uncertainty or to standardise patient results for comparison in research.</p>","PeriodicalId":22040,"journal":{"name":"South African Family Practice","volume":"65 1","pages":"e1-e8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476223/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Family Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v65i1.5683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronary artery disease (CAD) as the leading cause of death globally for the last 20 years. Early screening and detection (primary prevention) and intervention (secondary prevention) are necessary to curb CAD and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) prevalence. A scoping review to assess the current literature on using cardiac scoring systems to predict CAD and MACE was performed.
Methods: The research question 'What is the literature on using cardiac scoring systems to predict CAD and MACE?' was addressed. The updated Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews methodologies were used. The search terms 'coronary artery disease' and 'cardiac scoring systems' and 'major adverse cardiovascular events' were used in the Boolean search on PubMed, ScienceDirect, MedLine and Cochrane Library.
Results: The final list consisted of 19 published English results after the year 2000. There were six results without participants (four clinical guidelines, one review article and one ongoing clinical trial). Scoring systems were cardiovascular risk estimation systems focusing on the primary prevention of CAD; MACE was discussed but not scored. There were 13 robust results published from completed multinational clinical trials with participants. These results focused on a scoring system for the secondary prevention of CAD and MACE.
Conclusion: Scoring systems remain an objective method for primary and secondary prevention of CAD and MACE.Contribution: Scoring systems may be helpful with clinical uncertainty or to standardise patient results for comparison in research.
期刊介绍:
South African Family Practice (SAFP) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which strives to provide primary care physicians and researchers with a broad range of scholarly work in the disciplines of Family Medicine, Primary Health Care, Rural Medicine, District Health and other related fields. SAFP publishes original research, clinical reviews, and pertinent commentary that advance the knowledge base of these disciplines. The content of SAFP is designed to reflect and support further development of the broad basis of these disciplines through original research and critical review of evidence in important clinical areas; as well as to provide practitioners with continuing professional development material.